Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“You forget America’s powerful aircraft carrier fleet (23)”
TN – No, I don’t. They’re sitting ducks for Russian submarines and hypersonic missiles. And they can’t act as ports.
“and of course what George Orwell called Airstrip One – the UK – with its extensive American airbases.”
TS – UK ports can also be vaporised. Ipso facto, no US tanks arriving in Europe.
I’m afraid you are a complete fantasist, perhaps you should spend more of your time playing “Call of Duty” and exercising your knuckles.
“Hell, the American capitalist regime has more than enough firepower on its own to defeat the Russian capitalist regime”
TN – Lol, you forget about that ocean that needs crossing?
LOL,, You forgot, I think you’ll find that fighter aircraft these days can actually fly!!
With in air refueling, the Lockheep Martin Raptor could get across the Atlantic in less that 16 hours. This is in addition to the Raptors already based in Europe and the hundreds and hundreds of 4.5 Generation Fighters available across Western Europe.
Interestingly the US is replacing it’s very capable Fairchild Republic A10 tank buster with Raptors, squadron by squadron, as the Raptor is even more capable that the A10.
As to the reported 300,000 conscriptees and their impact on the war. Besides the considerable time involved in actually arranging the call up of the poor members of the working class being dragged into on the Russian side of intercapitalist dispute, which may take several weeks at least, training an infantryman takes about 14-16 weeks. Given that most Russian men will have been part of the 1 year national service requirement in Russia, the estimate to ready for the meat grinder is between 6-10 weeks, so the whole process is likely, at best, to start to have an impact at the eariest March or April. However the logistics also require that the new conscriptees have training bases and army training staff to carry out the role, which will mean that the process would take much, much longer.
Putting this into some context, the Iraqi army numbers at the start of the 2nd Gulf war was around 370,000 soldiers plus around 75,000 Iraqi Guards. The numbers that Putin is attempting to put into the field are about the same and the equipment is not that much more sophisticated
Interesting that you have failed to answer the first part of the question!
So basically every source you quote is correct (including the demonstrably incorrect Grover Furr, the confused quasi Maoist Michael Hudson, who thinks that Minneapolis was a Trotskyist city and works in the 263rd best ranked university in the USA and Scott Ritter who left anyone intelligence circles 20 years ago and who was definitely out of touch with events whilst he was serving 18 months in custody after being found guilty for child sex offences)
In comparison to this any source quoted which is contrary to your view is, in your view, to be immediately rejected on the basis of ‘cos I say so”.
Going back to my first question, will the 12 Russian 5th Generation fighter aircraft shoot down the 362 similar US planes, just because you say so?
“**$276 billion** in planned spending on **weapons systems alone**”
TN replies “And if that money is frittered away on overpriced junk?”
But what if some of that $276 billion, for just one example, has been spent on 5th Generation fighter aircraft, and what if it buys 362 of these aircraft, and what if the opposing force only has 12? And what if 80 years of military history shows that air superiority is the crucial factor in modern warfare?
And another question you might ask yourself is:
“What is the motivation of some of those claiming NATO weakness and lack of weapons?”
Is there not a possibility of some of this coming from the agents of multinational arms manufacturers?
I have just read through the dreadfully written, poorly referenced, and at times nonsensical article written by “Natasha Wright” and linked to this forum by True Nacissist.
This has made me wonder, given the writing style, the unsubstantiated assertions, the uncritical Pro Putin style, etc. Is it possible that TN has been moonlighting from talking shite on this platform and is spreading his anti working class puke on another website, under a pseudonym!!!
BD – “if a conventional war broke out between NATO and Russia (which won’t happen for lots of reasons, but mainly because it would escalate to a nuclear conflict very quickly.”
TM asked “Are you saying both sides will forever back down from it through fear of nuclear war?
But what if Putin continues to be denied a way out and NATO keeps backing him into a corner”No, what I was trying to say is that, to an extent, the conventional “war gaming” that the military undertake, is essentially futile. If NATO and the Russians/Chinese got into a full scale conventional conflict, which ever side reached a point where they were being threatened with defeat, they would press the button.
So all the end point assessments or the “war gaming” is always going to be limited. Any full scale “conventional war” would either end up with a fairly swift negotiated settlement or complete annihilation.
Do you think that Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Tojo, Saddam or Roosevelt would have accepted complete defeat without going for the final option?
True Narcissist “Erm no, I support the fight against Nazis.“
Well don’t let us stop you. Get yourself away, son.
I’m sure Putin would welcome you with open arms. Given your massive understanding of military logistics and strategy, I’d guess you’d be at least a Colonel by the end of the year.
Or could it be you just talk a good fight and really you’d fill your pants if it all really kicked off.🤣🤣🤣
Returning to Scott Ritter’s analysis of the weakness of NATO, in comparison to the Russian armed forces. Ritter’s emphasis is primarily based on the numerical superiority of Russian military vehicles (mainly tanks) in comparison to NATO.
I’ll return to that later, however if a conventional war broke out between NATO and Russia (which won’t happen for lots of reasons, but mainly because it would escalate to a nuclear conflict very quickly), like all modern wars (from 1939 onwards) air superiority would be the most important aspect, at least in the first phase.
Comparing air fleets between NATO and Russia shows a very different situation to Ritter’s assessment.
The collective military capabilities of the 30 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 20,723 to 4,173.
Not only does this provide a massive quantitative superiority, examining it from a qualitative point of view is even more sobering for Russia. The USAF now has a deployed strength of 302 5th generation fighter aircraft the US marine corps have 114 of these aircraft and the US navy has 26 aircraft. In addition to this the UK has an additional 26 deployed 5th generation fighters. Russia has 6 SU 57s (full 5th generation fighters) 6 MIG 35s (an updated model that some commentators regard as either 4.5th generation and some as 5th generation).
In terms of 4.5th generation fighters Russia has 120 SU 30s and 144 SU 34s. This compares to the 487 Typhoons (the 4.5 eurofighter) in service for NATO, 180 French built Rafales, 110 SAAB39 Gripens (76 Swedish ones due to join NATO) not including 15 full squadrons of US F18s in their Atlantic Fleet and 2 squadrons of British based F15 Strike Eagles.
The situation with regard to 4th generation fighters is similarly one sided.
Returning to the discussion on military vehicles and more importantly tanks. Russia does have a superior numerical strength in comparison with NATO. However, the vast majority of Russian tanks are 2nd Generation MBTs (T 72 standard version), whereas the bulk of NATO tanks are 3rd generation MBTs (Challenger 2s, Arietes, Leopard 2s, Abrahms, etc.). The qualitative gap is pretty large. The Iraqi army learned to their cost that a large number of outdated tanks is no match for more technologically advanced vehicles.
Sadly for True Narcissist, his Call of Duty based wet dream of Russian military success against NATO are unlikely to be fulfilled.
To Socialists, however, surveying this massive array of destructive machinery, we don’t see the success or failure of the machines and regimes that created them, we only see the kidney machines, schools, hospitals, care support, food, medical equipment, etc. etc. that a sane society could have created with the same resources.
True Narcissist- “I’m not a Stalinist”
To be fair, TN, it’s hard to tell, you’re position is about as stable as a kangaroo shagging a spacehopper
True Narcissist, can I make a little suggestion, having read you contributions on this forum over many months. Can I suggest that politics, economic theory and history are not your strong suits.
Can I also that suggest perhaps Morris Dancing or maybe train spotting might be hobbies that you could reach a level of understanding that would allow you to build some small degree of self esteem.
I genuinely think that they might be pastimes that you may even surpass your current level of proficiency in politics, economic theory and history and reach the, to you, dizzying heights of being just less than mediocre.
NATOstan isn’t being demilitarised, only a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy loon would believe such a thing. Lol.
True Narcissist quotes “German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht said at the last meeting of the German Cabinet in August 2022, that “there is little scope for sending weapons from the German army’s stockpile to Ukraine. I must admit that we have reached the limits of what we can offer. Our army must be able to guarantee the defense of the states and the German Confederation”
So True Narcissist thinks that Germany “wanting to protect” its own stockpile of weapons somehow implies “demilitarisation”. If Germany was getting rid of their stockpile, that would have shown demilitarisation! Wishing to maintain the stockpile shows the exact opposite.
You haven’t got the sense to realise that the sources you quote support the assertion you’re trying to disprove.
So you try to support your piss weak argument with Michael Hudson and quote his interview which starts by saying that “Minneapolis was a Trotskyist city”. Perhaps this might have given you a clue to his level of credibility.
FFS, do you not understand the irony of a Stalinist supporter using a Trotskyist to support his arguments and the quoting said Trotskyist saying that “Minneapolis was a Trotskyist city”
Barry Eldin’s account of the Teamsters strike that Hudson refers to states “When the Comintern expelled supporters of Leon Trotsky, these four and 23 other Minneapolis party members found themselves expelled. They played a key role in the founding of a new party organization, the Communist League of America (Opposition), making Minneapolis an important base for American Trotskyism.”
So you’re now recycling James P Cannon’s proto SWP as a form of legitimacy? I doubt you have even a clue who Cannon was, yet you attempt to lionise the very anti stalinists’s (Trotsky et al) whose execution you celebrate.
Did anyone tell the city of Minneapolis that they were a Trostskyist city? Doesn’t look like they realised that 27 disillusioned ex Bolsheviks, masquerading as Marxists took control of their city.
I’ll go back to my original question, please explain how a change to multipolar capitalism will end the exploitation workers in terms of surplus value? P.s. do you even understand what surplus value is and the implications of it?
Re Scott Ritter AJ said “Since his period of imprisonment (most likely instigated by his political position) he has become much more contrarian.”
Whilst I have no doubt that Ritter was to an extent set up, the fact of the matter is that he did set out to contact and groom children into sexual activity, despite the claims that he “thought it was an over 18 year old acting out a fantasy”.
Is it credible that a person who had a previous conviction for inciting children to engage in sexual activity and who had been an open and well known critic of the establishment, would go on line and take such clearly risky behaviour for any reason other than grooming a child?
True Narcissist said “The multipolar world being birthed now is qualitatively different to the one lorded over by the US empire and its EU vassals.”
How is a multipolar world qualitatively different to a unipolar world in terms of the working class. The fact is that we have had multipolar worlds in history and in fact the unipolar US based single superpower is actually unusual historically, we had a multipolar world up until the disintegration of the USSR.
During the life of Lenin, who’s theory of Imperialism you pretend to support and understand, but you clearly have never read or absorbed (I am still chuckling about your reference to the Polish late medieval Empire a being an example of Imperialism), the world was very definitely multipolar.
The German, the Austro Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires were vying for control of the world’s resources with the British, French and American Empires. A multipolar world then was not an advantage to the Workers at all, how will it be advantageous to us now?. (Just in case you have forgotten, Socialists are supposed to be supporting the interests of our own class, the Working Class).
In the time of Marx the world was multipolar, The British Empire, The French Empire, The German Empire, The Italian Empire, The Belgian Empire, The Dutch Empire and the Portuguese Empire were involved in the scramble for Africa and the colonisation of The East Indies, did Marx highlight the way that this Multipolar World was a great benefit to the workers of the world, I think not.
You state that this new multipolar world will be, and I quote directly from you “qualitatively different” from the unipolar world of US and EU hegemony. How will this be qualitatively different for workers in this new world? You, according to your description of yourself, are a Marxist. So how can you explain, from a Marxist frame of reference, that this new multipolar world will be qualitatively different?
How will this multipolar world bring about the end of the exploitation of the working class, i.e. the end of the use of capital to produce surplus value? If the system, you describe does not end the expropriation of the product of the workers
labour, how can this be helpful to the Workers?How can the hegemony or even the parity of the Russian capitalist class (you have admitted that Russia is a capitalist society) help the working class in any way? Russia is one of the most unequal countries in the world. The poorest half of the population owns 17% of national income, while the richest 500 people own 40% of financial assets in the country.
My Trades Union has had affiliation with Russian Trades Unions and our affiliates have stated that there have been many occasions of wildcat strikes in Russia because the trades union legislation is even more repressive that UK anti trades union legislation. The Russian Government has stated that “labour relations in Russia are amicable and settled, and there are practically no disputes or strikes”. You claim to be a Marxist, can you seriously state that somehow the Russia has developed a way of running a capitalist state (which you have acknowledged exists) where there is no conflict between the interests of Labour and the interests of Capital?
Furthermore, considering your promotion of a multipolar world, The Chinese Communist Party has stated very clearly that China is not a Socialist society, it has stated that development of a Socialist Society will take “in the region of 100 years”. I have previously quoted that statement and you have acknowledged that this is the situation. This statement states explicitly that “large sections of the economy will be based on the capitalist model”. How can the capitalist model, which Marxists (which you claim to be) know and understand to based on the exploitation of surplus value, be in the interests of the Working Class??????
How is being exploited by a Russian or a Chinese capitalist be “Qualitatively different” from being exploited by a British, American or European Capitalist?
You don’t even have the rudimentary understanding of economic, social or Marxist theory and history to realise that using the term “vassal” is clearly economically inappropriate for a discussion about a capitalist economy!!
BD “Says the genius that credulously accepts the proveably false nonsense that Grover Furr spews out.”
True Narcissist – “Rubbish. But I’m not going to bite. The little goldfish has forgotten where it is again. It’s swum over to the Ukraine/Russia page. Swim along little goldfish, mind the filter-intake.”
Scared to be exposed to the implications of the ridiculous views you hold, more like. Your cowardice in terms of signing up for the war you support is matched by discussing the fragility of the material you hold so dear.
